The Creation of Evil

[Devils' Advocate]

One could also argue it's the best of all possible worlds, no?

One could argue it's the best of all possible worlds? Yes! I could argue there are thousands of other variants of a reality that is not as violent as this reality. There is no reason an all powerful God could not bring forth a creation that did not require predator and prey. Plants need water, nutrients and sunshine to thrive - releasing oxygen. Couldn't animals survive on water, nutrients from grazing or root grubbing, and breathing the oxygen with their waste being carbon dioxide? Closing the circle? There would still be death of course. From old age. From accidents that can occur in a natural world environment.

There is no inherent reason such a different form of biosphere could not function just as effectively as the one we have. And that is but one simple alternate that I just ran off the top of my head. If one believes a god is responsible for the system we have, it is because he/she/it chose the system we have. Chose fear and agony, violent death.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Well, these are exactly the sort of contradictions a literal reading throws up. Where did Cain find his wife? Watching the invested professionals tie themselves in knots trying to explain that one away is far from enlightening.

But still, the story of A&E can perfectly 'allegorize' from how the ONE gave birth first to the male (creative) principle, which divided to the female (receptive) etc. The duality allowed entry to the 'third force' etc.
It's echoed in the Kaballah, the I Ching etc, and it all makes perfect sense that way?
Imo

G'day RJM and welcome to the forum. I'm from South Australia. My ancestors came to Australia from Germany in the late 1600's. We're Christian, but have never belonged to any particular denomination, nor do we follow their teachings. Not many on this forum will agree with what I'm about to say, as our views tend to get confused with that of American literalists, but the way we read the Bible, original sin refers to Satin's rebellion rather than Adam and Eve's indiscretions with Satin. Cain took his wife from the land of Nod, who's people were part of the 6th day creation. Adam and Eve on the other hand are not mentioned until after God had rested on the 7th. Presumably on the 8th day. (God's day equaling 1000 earth years) Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

There would still be death of course. From old age. From accidents that can occur in a natural world environment.

And from competition over resources.

 

[Thomas]

Harking back to my 'Buddhist' worldview, the cause of all suffering is the attachment to ... er ... suffering.

Enlightenment does not mean a cessation of suffering, Enlightenment means a transcendent understanding.

Returning to my Catholic worldview, we've touched on 'all possible worlds' — well maybe this is just one of those possible worlds, not the best, not the worst, it just is what it is.

When we ascribe qualities to God we use terms such as 'Absolute', 'Infinite' and so forth.

This cosmos is neither Absolute nor is it Infinite (in the metaphysical sense), in that it's governed by the laws of finitude, contingency, chance ... and all that was established in the first nano-moment of its creation. How things unfold then follows accordingly (in much the same way that the laws of nature are perceived as determined at the moment of the Big Bang).

So we have rabid dogs and avian flu, we have viruses and cancer ... that's the way the world is. That's the way finitude unfolds.

With regard to the Hexaemeron, we should read it in the light of the understanding of the ancients who wrote it — that notion that a God who is Good (and that itself is a stunning concept) does not do bad; that nature is cyclic; that the higher determines the lower; that man has some input into his destiny; that man can know God intimately ...

So the text should be read as myth, as metaphor ... and that for me is its richest reading. Like the Greek myths, its a profound insight into the human condition, unlike the Greek myths, it's a profound insight into the nature of the Deity.

Maybe ... just maybe ... I don't believe in an afterlife of this person 'Thomas'. Rather I believe that life goes on and that we can shape its destiny, albeit incrementally (although since the Industrial Revolution we've made great strides in bringing forward the 'end of life' date quite significantly).

Is that heretical?

The fruit of A&E's sin was that (in the full knowledge of the error, by the way — they did the one thing they were told not to do) they acted in their own best interest, and realised themselves as individual beings. Their first realisation was that they were separate, they were other, they were alone, they were naked, they covered themselves up, they hid from God ...

And in the West, we have been working hard to turn that vice into a virtue.

The concept of 'individuality', of my 'freedom', my 'autonomy', my 'uniqueness' is so enshrined as a 'God-given right' in the contemporary western mindset that I really doubt its capacity to engage in any real sense with the Transcendent. (Something the East has intimated for quite a while, and René Guénon stated in no uncertain fashion.)

We knocked God off the pedestal and put ourselves there.

The contemporary western mindset is the most idolatrous way of thinking the world has ever seen.

The one message of all Traditions is the Higher sets the terms, the lower does not determine the nature of the debate, which is what modern western pseudo-religions are all about.

The virtues above all other are 'detachment' and 'humility' — and see what a mockery we've made of that.

Simple lesson: Did you self-generate?
No.
Then you should be thankful for everything you've got, nothing is yours, it's all a gift.
To be used wisely ...

Oh dear ... this is turning into a rant ... signing out ...

 

[RJM]

One could argue it's the best of all possible worlds? Yes! I could argue there are thousands of other variants of a reality that is not as violent as this reality. There is no reason an all powerful God could not bring forth a creation that did not require predator and prey. Plants need water, nutrients and sunshine to thrive - releasing oxygen. Couldn't animals survive on water, nutrients from grazing or root grubbing, and breathing the oxygen with their waste being carbon dioxide? Closing the circle? There would still be death of course. From old age. From accidents that can occur in a natural world environment.

There is no inherent reason such a different form of biosphere could not function just as effectively as the one we have. And that is but one simple alternate that I just ran off the top of my head. If one believes a god is responsible for the system we have, it is because he/she/it chose the system we have. Chose fear and agony, violent death.

But even to survive on water, you kill microscopic water borne creatures?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Not sure. Some microscopic critters in water you drink are more likely to harm you than the other way around. Still as I suggested, it was just a very fast, off the top of my head, possible example. It wasn't meant to be a full fledged theory; rather a general concept around how life might alternatively have been created without a predator/prey aspect.

The take away point is that there are other potential ways reality might have been organized. It was a response to someone's question along the way in this thread about why this reality has to have so much pain and suffering when a god could have created an entirely different reality if he chose to do so.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

And from competition over resources.

Not necessarily. God could have created any reality he felt like. He could easily have created an abundance of resources for all. As per my prior post, picking apart a scenario I threw together in three minutes is pointless. That scenario was never meant to stand the test of scrutiny. The point was god had the power to create a completely different format for reality that did not require pain and suffering, death and destruction if he had wanted to do so.

The question, for me anyway, is why didn't he do that?

 

[RJM]

... The contemporary western mindset is the most idolatrous way of thinking the world has ever seen.

The one message of all Traditions is the Higher sets the terms, the lower does not determine the nature of the debate, which is what modern western pseudo-religions are all about.

The virtues above all other are 'detachment' and 'humility' — and see what a mockery we've made of that ...

Thank you for your wise observations

Yes. Imo We're here to learn whatever it is we need for our soul. We can't ever understand what all this is about, and without Christ and scripture we'd understand a great deal less?

God does help us greatly in our material life, if we ask for help. But never at cost to soul.

We have to ask though, because the law of free will prevents higher beings -- angels -- interfering in our lives without our invitation.

That's a humbling knowledge? That even 'God' by his own law, must await our own invitation?

(What a great forum.)

 

[RJM]

... Cain took his wife from the land of Nod, who's people were part of the 6th day creation. Adam and Eve on the other hand are not mentioned until after God had rested on the 7th. Presumably on the 8th day. (God's day equaling 1000 earth years) Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.

G'day.

Hmmm ...

Who knows? Not me.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

The point was god had the power to create a completely different format for reality that did not require pain and suffering, death and destruction if he had wanted to do so.

The question, for me anyway, is why didn't he do that?

Ever thought about asking God?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Not necessarily. God could have created any reality he felt like. He could easily have created an abundance of resources for all.

This is where we usually get, and and never get past. I think you have an idealized idea of what nature is, or could be. The amount of resources are not really relevant as any population that is allowed to grow without competition, deceases or predators will, given enough time, grow too plenty for any resource. Unless abundance equals limitless, which brings me to:

As per my prior post, picking apart a scenario I threw together in three minutes is pointless. That scenario was never meant to stand the test of scrutiny. The point was god had the power to create a completely different format for reality that did not require pain and suffering, death and destruction if he had wanted to do so.

This depends on if you're talking in the context of the physical universe as we know it, in which my answer would be no you will have to prove that point, or if you're talking about a magical universe that I can't imagine the laws for, then I guess so but I can't really relate to that alternative so I can't really say anything about it.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

This is where we usually get, and and never get past. I think you have an idealized idea of what nature is, or could be.

I understand why you feel that way. I do bang on about the natural world. It's not that I see it as some natural Nirvana that is perfect if humans weren't screwing it up. It comes across that way because I am responding to people whose comments are putting concepts upon the natural world that I do not believe are valid in the natural world. In this case, that animals are capable of evil.

I have no idealistic attitudes about how the natural world works. It is what it is. A complex interwoven set of characteristics and inter-relationships that has its own set of rules that may seem cruel and heartless from a human perspective, but is simply the way the system works to the creatures that live in it.

This depends on if you're talking in the context of the physical universe as we know it,

No in this particular instance I am not talking about the natural world as we know it. The natural world as it is requires a constant balancing act. Predators and prey have a symbiotic relationship. Resources are not always sufficient for all. Survival of the fittest allows the more robust individuals to procreate better than their weaker cousins.

My suggestion was that theoretically, an almighty god could have set up an alternate way for the biosphere to work. One that had different requirements for life to thrive without a survival of the fittest necessity. He could have set up any set of conditions he wanted. He's god!

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Ever thought about asking God?

Now you know I don't believe in gods. For the sake of having this discussion in this thread I am accepting that such a divinity exists. If there were a god, how might he do things differently from the way the world is.

Even if I did believe in a god, why would I ask him anything? The number of people who have had direct one on one communication with their deity is extremely rare. I don't pretend to be anybody special in the grand scheme of things. I'm just a guy trying to get by in this world as best I can like most all the rest of us.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Now you know I don't believe in gods.

All well and good. No point asking the question though, if you're going to deny the only source for the answer.

For the sake of having this discussion in this thread I am accepting that such a divinity exists.

If that's true, why not go a step further and give a shot at communicating with this supposed deity? I mean, get down on bended knee and sincerely ask God for guidance. What do you have to lose? Now if you do, don't expect a voice from the heavens to sing out with the answer, but do pay attention to the world around you and those who cross your path for a few days. Somewhere in there will be your answer.

The number of people who have had direct one on one communication with their deity is extremely rare.

I don't know about that mate. I'm certainly not a rarity and I talk to God one on one all the time. As do millions of faithful people everyday. Can't speak for all of them, but God has in one way or the other answered every query I've ever had.

I'm just a guy trying to get by in this world as best I can like most all the rest of us.

Same here. It's just that, I can't even imagine trying to make that attempt without God.

 

[Justin Swanton]

My suggestion was that theoretically, an almighty god could have set up an alternate way for the biosphere to work. One that had different requirements for life to thrive without a survival of the fittest necessity. He could have set up any set of conditions he wanted. He's god!

The point is, he will. Christian eschatology is clear on the subject. Which means he didn't set up the present dispensation out of cruelty or incompetence, but for a very specific reason alluded to in the first post. Humans as a rule are not made miserable by the conditions of this present existence, but they are simply unable, try as they might, to consider this world as a definitive, perfect, happy, fulfilling home. We want something and we are unable to find it here. The 'dream your dream' mantra in a confused way gets this truth. We are not usually crushed by misery (and those who are do not have to be spiritually crushed) but we are constantly reminded that what we are looking for is somewhere else. It's the great powerhouse of religion.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

If that's true, why not go a step further and give a shot at communicating with this supposed deity? ........... Now if you do, don't expect a voice from the heavens to sing out with the answer, but do pay attention to the world around you and those who cross your path for a few days. Somewhere in there will be your answer.

I don't know about that mate. I'm certainly not a rarity and I talk to God one on one all the time.

These two statements say opposite things. The first says you do not get a direct answer from the big G. An answer is given to you by someone/thing in the world around you. That is not one on one conversation.

The second statement says you do speak one on one with the big G all the time.

This is confusing to me.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Which means he didn't set up the present dispensation out of cruelty or incompetence, but for a very specific reason alluded to in the first post.

we are constantly reminded that what we are looking for is somewhere else. It's the great powerhouse of religion.

So I'm probably getting this wrong. What I comprehend from what you are saying is that he built this reality this way with all the pain and suffering on purpose. To remind people that the ultimate peaceful harmony is somewhere else (i.e. heaven?).

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

These two statements say opposite things. The first says you do not get a direct answer from the big G. An answer is given to you by someone/thing in the world around you. That is not one on one conversation.

Not at all. It's one on one in the sense that, when I speak to God it's strictly between him and myself. Ofttimes my end of the conversation is nonverbal, as I tend to pray silently and God's end of the conversation is not always immediate nor does it always take on the same form. It is no less personal communication between the two of us though. That may not fit the text book definition of one on one, but that's just how it works.

 

[Justin Swanton]

So I'm probably getting this wrong. What I comprehend from what you are saying is that he built this reality this way with all the pain and suffering on purpose. To remind people that the ultimate peaceful harmony is somewhere else (i.e. heaven?).

Exactly. But there's more to it than that. The problem today is that in our consumerist, convenient and comfortable society we have lost sight of the fact that suffering is not necessarily bad. Solzhenitsyn spent seven years in the Gulag where he nearly died. Yet after it he wrote this:

“Bless you prison, bless you for being in my life. For there, lying upon the rotting prison straw, I came to realize that the object of life is not prosperity as we are made to believe, but the maturity of the human soul.” ​

Remember Agent Smith's interrogation of Morpheus in The Matrix? He makes the point that humans do not fit in a perfect world which is why the first Matrix collapsed. If everything materially went our way we would spoil it somehow, not be happy, like a rich playboy is not happy. We have to change, not the world around us, and the world in its present state of imperfection is ideally suited to help us with that transformation.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Exactly. But there's more to it than that. The problem today is that in our consumerist, convenient and comfortable society we have lost sight of the fact that suffering is not necessarily bad. Solzhenitsyn spent seven years in the Gulag where he nearly died. Yet after it he wrote this:

“Bless you prison, bless you for being in my life. For there, lying upon the rotting prison straw, I came to realize that the object of life is not prosperity as we are made to believe, but the maturity of the human soul.” ​

Remember Agent Smith's interrogation of Morpheus in The Matrix? He makes the point that humans do not fit in a perfect world which is why the first Matrix collapsed. If everything materially went our way we would spoil it somehow, not be happy, like a rich playboy is not happy. We have to change, not the world around us, and the world in its present state of imperfection is ideally suited to help us with that transformation.

I think this makes sense to a point, but then we get to where people actually break and there seems to be no way to put them back together again. A person can experience horror which turn them into monsters or emotionally crippled for the rest of their lives. In this matrix, only some of us are able to change and transform. Is this matrix, are only some meant to succeed?